Nirmala Devi vs Dev Raj Sharma Son Of Late Khushi
2022 Latest Caselaw 9092 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

.

ON THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA CIVIL RIVISION No. 163 of 2017

Between:

1. NIRMALA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SURENDER KUMAR SOOD,

2. NIRUPAMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE SURENDER KUMAR SOOD,

3. MONIKA DAUGHTER OF LATE

SURENDER KUMAR SOOD,

4. BHAVNESH SOOD, SON OF LATE SURENDER KUMAR SOOD,

ALL RESIDENTS OF KHUSHI RAM

BUILDING RULDU BHATTA, SHIMLA, H.P.

.....PETITIONERS/TENANTS/ JDs.

(BY MR. SUNNET GOEL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. DEV RAJ SHARMA SON OF LATE KHUSHI RAM RESIDENT OF 24, KHUSHI RAM BUILDING RULDU BHATAT, SHIMLA, H.P.

2. KRISHNA NAND SHARMA, S/O SH. RAM DUTT SHARMA, R/O KHUSHI RAM

BUILDING, RULDU BHATTA, SHIMLA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA.

.

....RESPONDENTS/DH

(MS. B.S. THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)

(MR. HEMANT VAID, ADVOCATE, FOR AND WITH RESPONDENT NO.2-

KRISHNA NAND SHARMA)

Whether approved for reporting?.

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

                         r                ORDER

                 CMP No. 11850 of 2022

By way of instant application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read

with Section 151 CPC, prayer has been made to place on record

compromise arrived inter-se parties during the pendency of the accompany

civil revision petition, whereby parties have resolved to settle their dispute

amicably inter-se them.

2. Having perused contents of the application, which is duly

supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that non-applicant/respondent

Mr. Dev Raj Sharma had filed rent petition No. 28/2 of 2010/06 in the

court of learned Rent Controller Shimla. Late Sh. Surinder Kumar Sood,

was the husband of the applicant/petitioner No.1 and father of the

applicants/petitioners No. 2 to 4. After the death of Sh. Surinder Kumar

Sood, applicants/petitioners were brought on record as his LRs. However,

.

rent petition, as detailed herein above, was allowed vide judgment dated

20.11.2011 and applicants/petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the

tenanted premises.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment

and order of eviction, applicants/petitioners preferred appeal before the

learned District Judge, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated

27.7.2013, however, applicants/petitioners were granted option of re-entry

into the building in accordance with the proviso to clause (c) of Section 14

(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act.

4. Non-applicants/respondents filed execution petition before the

learned Rent Controller, to which applicants/petitioners filed objections

under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC, however, same were

dismissed vide order dated 10.8.2017. In the aforesaid background,

applicants have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

5. During the pendency of the revision petition, respondent No.1

sold a portion of the building including the tenanted premises to non-

applicant-respondent No.2 and as such, subsequent purchaser Shri

Krishna Nand Sharma, was arrayed as party to the revision petition.

6. Applicant/respondent No.2 has started rebuilding of the

premises in a phased manner and has provided alternate accommodation

to the petitioners. It has been agreed inter-se parties that after completion

.

of the construction, applicants/petitioners shall have right of induction in

terms of the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller Act.

7. In view of the aforesaid amicable settlement arrived inter-se

parties, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the

application and accordingly, factum with regard to compromise is taken on

record. The application is disposed of.

Civil Revision No. 163 of 2017

8. Though by way of instant civil revision petition, challenge has

been laid to order dated 10.8.2017, passed by the learned Rent Controller,

Shimla, in execution 10-10 of 2014-1, but before same could be decided on

its own merits, parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-

se them as recorded in the earlier part of the order and have approached

this Court by way of application bearing CMP o 11850 of 2022, which has

been allowed vide aforesaid order.

9. Learned counsel for the parties state that on account of

amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties, which has been duly recorded

in the aforesaid order, present petition can be disposed of as withdrawn.

10. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be

adjudicated in the instant proceedings and as such, present petition is

disposed of as withdrawn, however, order dated 10.8.2017, whereby

warrant of possession was issued is quashed and set-aside and parties are

.

directed to abide by the terms and conditions contained in the compromise,

failing which they would render themselves liable for penal consequences

as well as contempt proceedings.

7th November, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma), Judge

(manjit)